MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_ScottLloyd]

ScottLloyd

I suppose it had something to do with the context in which the question was framed, wherein you fantasized about the survivors' descendants bringing a lawsuit against the Church over the book. Your supposition that the descendants as whole are not only unacquainted with the book but hostile to its authors seemed amusingly far from reality, as indicated by an upcoming educational symposium sponsored by a major group of descendants of Mountain Meadows victims at which Turley has been invited to speak.

Just to clarify ..

As this book has been discussed for several years prior to publication, I am sure there are those interested in the new Church stance on MMM and keenly interested in the book. I did not I imply any animosity towards the authors.

Then why did you say, "I wonder how many copies of M@MM is Amazon mailing to Arkansas?" as though any substantial demand in Arkansas for a nationally distributed book would be a remarkable thing?

Incidentally, the news release announcing the educational seminar included bio information for the speakers. In the paragraph about Turley, it says he is working on a 500-page volume containing MMM documents and transcriptions from the John D. Lee trials. Doesn't sound much like the behavior of a man who plans on squirreling away primary sources so that others can't get at them.

[_Trevor]

Then why did you say, "I wonder how many copies of M@MM is Amazon mailing to Arkansas?" as though any substantial demand in Arkansas for a nationally distributed book would be a remarkable thing?

And so it grinds on... Are you catching Daniel's illness, Scott? His obsessive fascination with those hostile to Mormonism? The less substance the better? What could possibly be more fun than watching two apologists pad out with vacuous fluff what they perceive to lack substance in such a mind-numbing way? I don't know... say, lots of things?

[_Ray A]

Incidentally, the news release announcing the educational seminar included bio information for the speakers. In the paragraph about Turley, it says he is working on a 500-page volume containing MMM documents and transcriptions from the John D. Lee trials. Doesn't sound much like the behavior of a man who plans on squirreling away primary sources so that others can't get at them.

That would be far more interesting to me than the M@MM book itself, something worth investing in. I'm about halfway through Lee's Confessions and find sources like this of far more interest.

[_Trevor]

That would be far more interesting to me than the M@MM book itself, something worth investing in. I'm about halfway through Lee's Confessions and find sources like this of far more interest.

It's probably more of a page-turner, no doubt.

[_Ray A]

It's probably more of a page-turner, no doubt.

It's the amateur history buff in me, check the primary sources first. It's essentially Lee speaking, not others interpreting Lee for me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I highly doubt it's accurate. I'm quite certain that the church's plan is to say that everything is going to be made available, but once everyone forgets about it, it'll be back to plan A and nothing will be made available.

They're throwing the dogs off the scent, if you will.

Faith. It's a beautiful thing.

[_Daniel Peterson]

ScottLloydAre you suggesting that Oxford is selling the books directly?

Oxford certainly is selling the books directly.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ya got that Beastie? You can mention it maybe once, but Daniel can tell you 40-45 times that it's pointless.

I have resisted using a sig line, but this one may be just too tempting to pass up.

You can always follow Scartch's lead, and rip a statement out of context for use as a signature.

Do you really, seriously, think that beastie only "mentioned it" once, or even "maybe once"? And that I've been responding to it over and over again since then merely because my typing fingers suffer from muscle spasms?

Wow. This is a very, very weird place.

Fifty by the fifth!

[_beastie]

Do you really, seriously, think that beastie only "mentioned it" once, or even "maybe once"? And that I've been responding to it over and over again since then merely because my typing fingers suffer from muscle spasms?

Um, Daniel, what Xong means is that, under the rules of your logic and reasoning, I am only "allowed" to mention the conflict of interest one time. If I mention it more than one time, it's poisoning the well.

However, under the rules of your logic and reasoning, you're "allowed" to tell me how pointless the thread and my larger point is 40-45 times. That, under your rules of logic and reasoning, is not poisoning the well.

He didn't mean that I only mentioned it one time.

(now your not getting my fairly obvious joke earlier makes more sense - as you like to say - "whoosh")

(ps, see my earlier ironic pix in regards to you complaining about taking a quote out of context for a sig line)

[_TAK]

Book arrived yesterday.
Only 50 pages in but a pro-mormon slant seems to be developing.
Not a surprise I suppose.

edit to add:
Be that as it may, interesting tidbits as I go along such, re-baptisims, BY witholding the sacrament from the saints during the reformation period (presumably for not being worthy) and the "Questions to be asked the Latter Day Saints" on pg 26. No. 1 "Have you committed Murder, by shedding innocent blood, or consenting thereto." (Emph added)